However, after Mr Gabbert's plight elicited a social media campaign and news stories, the family changed course.'I think the people that bought the dog and read the stories had started receiving hang-up phone calls, late night drive-bys, and emailed death threats, including particularly gruesome ones about their children. God bless the Internet,' Mr Gabbert's father Robert Sr told MailOnline.

Theaetetus:However, after Mr Gabbert's plight elicited a social media campaign and news stories, the family changed course.'I think the people that bought the dog and read the stories had started receiving hang-up phone calls, late night drive-bys, and emailed death threats, including particularly gruesome ones about their children. God bless the Internet,' Mr Gabbert's father Robert Sr told MailOnline.

I'm more interested in that piece of shiat ex girlfriend and if there's a way for the internet to make her life hell for a biatchicks who pull that shiat on soldiers who are deployed deserve their own special place in hell.

Theaetetus:However, after Mr Gabbert's plight elicited a social media campaign and news stories, the family changed course.'I think the people that bought the dog and read the stories had started receiving hang-up phone calls, late night drive-bys, and emailed death threats, including particularly gruesome ones about their children. God bless the Internet,' Mr Gabbert's father Robert Sr told MailOnline.

So they gave up the dog not because they wanted to but to stop the harassment. The gf is a douchebag. So is the family and the people harassing them.

MechaPyx:Theaetetus: However, after Mr Gabbert's plight elicited a social media campaign and news stories, the family changed course.'I think the people that bought the dog and read the stories had started receiving hang-up phone calls, late night drive-bys, and emailed death threats, including particularly gruesome ones about their children. God bless the Internet,' Mr Gabbert's father Robert Sr told MailOnline.

So they gave up the dog not because they wanted to but to stop the harassment. The gf is a douchebag. So is the family and the people harassing them.

/people suck

I'm sorry, no. The family wasn't being douchy. They bought a dog, and wanted to keep him. There is NOTHING douchy about that.

Publikwerks:ecmoRandomNumbers: No rest for the wicked. This was only going to get worse if they didn't stop being douches.

How was the family being douches?

The douche was the GF, not the family. If I was the family, I would sue the shiat out of her, see if you can press charges.

Nope. Once the guy who bought the dog found out whose dog it really was the only proper thing to do should have been immediately clear. His instinct was to not do the right thing, period. So the douche-ometer definitely picks up two separate signals in this case.

Publikwerks:MechaPyx: Theaetetus: However, after Mr Gabbert's plight elicited a social media campaign and news stories, the family changed course.'I think the people that bought the dog and read the stories had started receiving hang-up phone calls, late night drive-bys, and emailed death threats, including particularly gruesome ones about their children. God bless the Internet,' Mr Gabbert's father Robert Sr told MailOnline.

So they gave up the dog not because they wanted to but to stop the harassment. The gf is a douchebag. So is the family and the people harassing them.

/people suck

I'm sorry, no. The family wasn't being douchy. They bought a dog, and wanted to keep him. There is NOTHING douchy about that.

I kind of think it's pretty douchey to buy your kids a trend-dog off craigslist, but that's not really what we're talking about here.

doctor wu:Publikwerks: ecmoRandomNumbers: No rest for the wicked. This was only going to get worse if they didn't stop being douches.

How was the family being douches?

The douche was the GF, not the family. If I was the family, I would sue the shiat out of her, see if you can press charges.

Nope. Once the guy who bought the dog found out whose dog it really was the only proper thing to do should have been immediately clear. His instinct was to not do the right thing, period. So the douche-ometer definitely picks up two separate signals in this case.

Would you really want your kids to be miserable because you took away the family pet they'd grown to love?

I mean, it's clearly the right thing to do, but I can't really call someone a douche for not wanting to do it.

I'm thinking it's now his ex-girlfriend. What a biatch. If his father was willing to watch the dog she was a total biatch for not sending to him. Selling the dog while he's deployed? That's a pretty shiatty thing to do. What a coont.

I don't blame the family for purchasing the dog...how could they know it was sold without the owner's permission. However, once they heard that the dog was sold without the owners permission, they should have returned him immediately. He could have pressed charges for Receiving and Concealing stolen property against the family.

doctor wu:Publikwerks: ecmoRandomNumbers: No rest for the wicked. This was only going to get worse if they didn't stop being douches.

How was the family being douches?

The douche was the GF, not the family. If I was the family, I would sue the shiat out of her, see if you can press charges.

Nope. Once the guy who bought the dog found out whose dog it really was the only proper thing to do should have been immediately clear. His instinct was to not do the right thing, period. So the douche-ometer definitely picks up two separate signals in this case.

But I can also understand about telling him to go f off after finding yourself in the middle of an episode of "My Crazy farking GF". Hence why I would say, you want the dog back, press charges. Her crazyness is not only affecting you, but us now. And if we are going to get our money back, we need this to be a case of stolen property.

MechaPyx:Theaetetus: However, after Mr Gabbert's plight elicited a social media campaign and news stories, the family changed course.'I think the people that bought the dog and read the stories had started receiving hang-up phone calls, late night drive-bys, and emailed death threats, including particularly gruesome ones about their children. God bless the Internet,' Mr Gabbert's father Robert Sr told MailOnline.

So they gave up the dog not because they wanted to but to stop the harassment. The gf is a douchebag. So is the family and the people harassing them.

/people suck

I have to agree. I don't care for the people harassing them, but it's sad it took that for these idiots to (in my opinion) do the right thing.

A woman I knew was given her husband's dog in the divorce settlement, and to get back at her ex, had the dog put down.

BeesNuts:Publikwerks: MechaPyx: Theaetetus: However, after Mr Gabbert's plight elicited a social media campaign and news stories, the family changed course.'I think the people that bought the dog and read the stories had started receiving hang-up phone calls, late night drive-bys, and emailed death threats, including particularly gruesome ones about their children. God bless the Internet,' Mr Gabbert's father Robert Sr told MailOnline.

So they gave up the dog not because they wanted to but to stop the harassment. The gf is a douchebag. So is the family and the people harassing them.

/people suck

I'm sorry, no. The family wasn't being douchy. They bought a dog, and wanted to keep him. There is NOTHING douchy about that.

I kind of think it's pretty douchey to buy your kids a trend-dog off craigslist, but that's not really what we're talking about here.

This is going to be a long running argument in this thread. Let's just agree that everyone everywhere are douchebags - when everyone is a douchebag, no one will be!

YaY!! Great on Fark and other media that pressed the parents to do the right thing. Way to go everyone. I retract my previous post about the parents being assholes. Nice job, and you just made a man very happy by returning his dog. HI5. The girlfriend is still a coont though, I'm not taking that back.

Bit'O'Gristle:YaY!! Great on Fark and other media that pressed the parents to do the right thing. Way to go everyone. I retract my previous post about the parents being assholes. Nice job, and you just made a man very happy by returning his dog. HI5. The girlfriend is still a coont though, I'm not taking that back.

Once the dust settles and the pup is reunited, that GF should be publicly outed.Oh, and can the family in CO not learn the absolute joy of adopting a Rescue?

/RIP Brando//best damned decision I ever made///lost to old age but never forgotten

From what I read on another article, they "relented" only after a $1400 offer was put out there, so my guess is that's about double of what they paid for Baxter... So I still say the buyers were still being a douche, even though I know how tight money can be, while trying to raise a family on poverty wages...

Back in the day when I practiced family law, I represented the husband in a divorce case (no kids, older couple). He and wife were fighting about the property split and debts incurred after the separation. One of the issues was who gets the dog. Husband wanted dog; so did wife. It was a small potatoes case, so no depositions were taken since the parties couldn't afford it. We go to trial, taking the position that the dog was "marital" property (which must divided between the spouses) rather than "separate" property (which stayswith the owning spouse). I hear, at trial, for the first time, wife's testimony that the dog was a gift to her by husband; therefore, it was "separate property." If true, she'd win that. Not wanting to lose that point, I quickly devised a rejoinder. There's a rule that says that if separate property is mixed with marital, it becomes marital (e.g., inheritance is separate property, unless it's put in the marital bank account, then it becomes marital). My argument: the dog was marital property now because it had been mixed with marital property, i.e., marital funds had been used to feed the dog, pay its vet bills, etc. The judge didn't buy it; he ruled against my client and gave the wife her dog.

Guy buys a really 'trendy' breed, shows pictures of him not behaving responsibly with it. Guy gets dog KNOWING he is going to be deploying for months at a time. This breed is known to be NOT easy dogs to care for. He leaves it with his girlfriend who may or may not have dog experience (like his Dad does).

The articles are lean on what was wrong with the dog when the girlfriend was taking it. We also do not know how promptly he replied to concerns, only just at 'one point' he told her he would ship it to his dad. Whether he responded to her quickly or sort of let it slide we don't know.

Secondly, she sold the dog. She did not leave it at a shelter where there it is a chance of it being put down. She also didn't give it away, making sure whomever buys it actually likely would take care of it.

Perhaps it was malicious on her part and he did nothing wrong. But, shiat...all of it is pretty lean on facts and the article seems pretty slanted to make sure to share only one point of view.

Back in the day when I practiced family law, I represented the husband in a divorce case (no kids, older couple). He and wife were fighting about the property split and debts incurred after the separation. One of the issues was who gets the dog. Husband wanted dog; so did wife. It was a small potatoes case, so no depositions were taken since the parties couldn't afford it. We go to trial, taking the position that the dog was "marital" property (which must divided between the spouses) rather than "separate" property (which stayswith the owning spouse). I hear, at trial, for the first time, wife's testimony that the dog was a gift to her by husband; therefore, it was "separate property." If true, she'd win that. Not wanting to lose that point, I quickly devised a rejoinder. There's a rule that says that if separate property is mixed with marital, it becomes marital (e.g., inheritance is separate property, unless it's put in the marital bank account, then it becomes marital). My argument: the dog was marital property now because it had been mixed with marital property, i.e., marital funds had been used to feed the dog, pay its vet bills, etc. The judge didn't buy it; he ruled against my client and gave the wife her dog.

Gunther:doctor wu: Publikwerks: ecmoRandomNumbers: No rest for the wicked. This was only going to get worse if they didn't stop being douches.

How was the family being douches?

The douche was the GF, not the family. If I was the family, I would sue the shiat out of her, see if you can press charges.

Nope. Once the guy who bought the dog found out whose dog it really was the only proper thing to do should have been immediately clear. His instinct was to not do the right thing, period. So the douche-ometer definitely picks up two separate signals in this case.

Would you really want your kids to be miserable because you took away the family pet they'd grown to love?

I mean, it's clearly the right thing to do, but I can't really call someone a douche for not wanting to do it.

It was a week! Hell, use it as a teaching lesson. I call semi-douche, or just spineless.

yeah, that family sure was mean and evil for keeping the dog. not like those nice, friendly internet people who threatened to murder their children. that was surely a reasoned, rational response to the situation. i didn't hear about anyone threatening to kill the girlfriend who actually sold the dog, you know, the person actually to blame. but the family who did nothing but give the dog a nice new home are worthy of death threats. they should have called the cops, kept the dog, and told that guy to go fark himself.

if that guy had gone to prison and gave the dog to his girlfriend and she sold it, no one would have cared at all about that guy. but he's a soldier? oh well then, let's just do whatever he wants. if this guy was such a hero, he would have graciously let the family keep the dog because their kids loved it so much. the villain here is the girlfriend, not the family.

taurusowner:I'm more interested in that piece of shiat ex girlfriend and if there's a way for the internet to make her life hell for a biatchicks who pull that shiat on soldiers who are deployed deserve their own special place in hell.

The family in the article is douchy. This would have been a good lesson to teach the kids the dangers of Craigslist and buying things that aren't supposed to be sold. Also could have gotten a rescue dog from a shelter.

Both of my dogs are rescues -- one found as a sick puppy, vet didn't think she'd make the night 9 years ago; the other was an overheard phone call about taking a dog to the shelter, said nope, bring her here, my other dog needs a better friend than a cat, 7 years ago.

This was a good teachable moment and the family used "Think about the children" as their defense. That's douchy. My Dad, when similar situations happened to me growing up, taught me to give people what's theirs and to not feel bad about giving the animal up because it's going home with the family it loves; not "my son's attached to your animal, not giving it up, nope, now piss off".

Treat me like my age, you know, explain it like you would to a five year old

In the jurisdiction I practiced in, all property owned by a husband and wife is classified as either "marital" or "separate." As a general rule, marital property is split 50/50, but separate property goes to the owning spouse. Property is marital if it was acquired during the marriage. Property is separate if it was owned before the marriage or it was a gift/inheritance during the marriage.

Thus, if husband buys tools after he's married, while he may think of them as "his" tools, in fact they are marital property since they were acquired during the marriage; if the couple later divorces, wife gets half the tools. If husband owned the tools before getting married, they remain his as "separate" property.

A frequently litigated issue is when separate property gets converted to marital. If, during the marriage, husband inherits a bunch of money from an aunt, and he puts the money in a separate bank account and keeps it there, that money stays as his separate property. But if the husband were to take the same money and put it into the family checking account, then at that point it's been mixed with marital assets and becomes "marital" property, subject to equal division if couple divorces.

In my case, wife was claiming dog as separate property because it was a gift to her. My only out to allow my client to get a piece of the dog was to argue that the dog became marital property, as it had been "mixed" with marital property, i.e., food bought with marital funds.